Texas, and her relations with Mexico. Speech of Robert Dale Owen, of Indiana, delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, Jan. 8, 1845

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

0 014 646 884 6

TEXAS, AND HER RELATIONS WITH MEXICO.

F 390
.09
Copy 1

->*.

SPEECH

OF

ROBERT DALE OWEN,

OF INDIANA,

Delivered in the House of Representatives of the United Slates, Jon. 8, 1845..

[The House being in Committee of tlie Whole
on the State of the Union, and having under consid-
eration Joint Resolution No. 46, for annexing Texas
to the United States,]

Mr. OWEN said: In the brief time which our
rule allots to debate in this House, one is compelled
to select from among the various topics of any im-
portant subject. Leaving, then, the details of the
several plans of annexation to be discussed by their
authors, I shall say but a word on the constitution-
al argument, already ably touched on; an argument,
however, which it is difficult fully and with precis-
ion to make, until we shall be able to distinguish
in what particular form annexation is likely to be
consummated.

We have talked of a "treaty of annexation," un-
1 til these have become familiar words. Is it certain,
; that such an act can be properly consummated by a
I treaty at all? A treaty is a compact between two
I sovereign nations. Now, at what moment could
I what we have called a treaty of annexation have
. been such a compact' Not certainly before it was
latified. Until then, ^t was of no force whatever;
an escrow; inchoate, as lawyers say. But would it
have been a treaty after its ratification? Suppose the
Senate roll called, the ratifying vote given, and the
instrument passed to the President; at the instant
■when his pen completed the approving signature,
would it, even at that first moment of final ac-
tion upon it, at that very first moment of its
■ legal existence, then have been a treaty? A
j treaty between whom? A compact between what
two sovereign powers? Between us and Texas'
That approving signature would have stricken
Texas from the independent sovereignties of the
earth. And there would have remained nothing,
but what is familiar enough to us — what Congress
has often consummated, and will consummate
again and again, as a matter of course — a compact
between the federal government, and a portion of
©ur own territory; a compact coming within the
province of Congress, not of the treaty-making
power.

There would be stipulations still to be fulfilled,
but not what could be properly called treaty stipula-

tions, for there would be no foreign sovereign power
ther. existing, with whom we could fulfil them.

My argument is not, that an act of annexation is
nothing more than a compact between the general
government and one of her Territories. I but say,
tliat it resembles that quite as much as it resembles
a treaty. But, in truth, it is neither the one nor the
other. It is an act sui generis. Talk of pre-
cedents to justify it! You might as well seek,
in his ancestors, the fame of Napoleon Buona-
parte. He was himself an ancestor! There never
was, in the history of the world before, so far as my
reading extends, an offer made by one of the inde-
pendent nations of the earth to merge her sovereign-
ty in that of another. It is a contingency wholly
new. The action upon it must be new. Our action
in this case will become a precedent.

That we have the right, in some form, to extend
our territory by accepting such a proposition, no
sensible man, I thhik, can very seriously doubu
A sovereign power without the power of receiving
an accession of domain would be an anomaly in ju-
risprudence, if not a contradiction in terms. To de-
ny to a nation such a power of increase, is a sort of
Shaker doctrine in politics, which we may expect to
see received in theory, and acted out in practice,
in this world, when the doctrines of Mother Ann
Lee are professed and practised by mankind — not
till then.

Our decision as to the most appropriate form, in
which to set so great a precedent, ought, is my
judgment, to be chiefly determined l)y the consid-
eration, that it is desirable it should receive the most
complete national assent that can be given to it,
under our institutions. And surely it is not the best
mode of effecting such an object, to exclude from all
participation in that assent, this, the popular and
most numerous branch of the government.

With these brief hints, I leave the constitutional
point to others, older and of more experience in le-
gislation than myself, and pass to a review of the sub-
ject, ia its foreign aspect. I purpose to speak of th»
justice and expediency of this great measure; in con-
nection with the public sentiment of this country,,
and with the laws of the civilized woild.

In all mattera of controverBy, however important,^

there are commonly certain main principles, which
once established, the whole subject in dispute is
settled. And if we desire to obtain clear views of
things, we do well to fix our eyes steadily on these,
nor sutler our attention to be withdrawn by inciden-
tal propositions, not relevant, or, at least, not es-
sential.

If this be true in the general, the remark applies
with especial force to the subject before us. It
would be difficult to find a matter, where the decisive

Eoints at issue are so few and simple; yet one that
as been so smothered'up by a load of extraneous
matter, as this of Texas annexation. The right or
wrong of the case is a question of public justice, of
international law; it hangs not on the tone of a de-
spatch or the wording of an accompanying docu-
ment. The expediency of the measure involves
considerations national in the widest sense of the
term, co-extensive with the Union, reaching to after
■ ages; let it not be dwarfed down to a party wrangle,
or a Northern and Southern dispute; a quarrel, that
has no higher aim, than to give office to a man, or
sustaining aid to a temporary institution.

The public press is loaded down with comments
on the aiplomatic encounters of ihe past year, be-
tween us and IVTexico. These paper Aveapons may
decide our opinion of men; they ought not to influ-
ence our judgment of measures. Let those who find
cause of offence in their language and spirit sutler
me to remind them, that, when they have settled
that point, they are no nearer the true issue than be-
fore. We may not like the terms in which a claim
is urged; yet, if we are just, we shall still look to
the substance of the claim, not to the manner of pre-
ferring it.

It is easy and invidious to find fault, especially
when a transaction is passed and its results have be-
come apparent. Yet I trust 1 shall not give ofTence,
nor be held failing in respect to the parties concern-
ed, if 1 express regret, that the question of the right
or the wrong of the Texian revolulion has been
suffered to mingle, even incidentally, with the true
issues, in our diplomatic correspondence with
Mexico. The Texians, indeed, have most am-
ple justification of their revolution. The war
which gloriously ended at New Orleans thirty
years ago this very day, was not more just
than that by which Texas became independent. One
half the provocation Texas has received would have
dissevered our Union long ago. There is not a
State of the twenty-six so poor of spirit, that her
citizens would not have risen, as a man, against
such usurpation. But however unquestionable the
right, it is not one, in my judgment, which we were
called upon, or which we should have permitted
ourselves, to argue with Mexico. With Texas, not
with us, was the question of past grievances against
Mexican authority open, if open at all. But in
truth it was closed; closed, long since, by that stern
arbiter, the sword.

Nor does it seem to me, that it was our place, as
negotiators, even to allude to former rights under
by-gone treaties. Do we claim Texas under the
treaty of 1S03.' Not at all. Signor Rejon so con-
strues it; but that is only one of tlie men of straw he
Bets up, for the convenient pleasure of comfortably
demolishing him again.

As between us and Texas, the argument from
that treaty, in its mora/ bearing, is a strong one; and
as such I have, on a pvcvious occasion, alluded to
it. Our solemn promise publicly made in 1803 we
TJolated in 1819; and though we may not take ad-

vantage of our own wrong still to claim Texas
against our formal cession, yet neither are we re-
leased irom our obligation to receive her, so soon as
circumstances lawfully and honorably permit, and
she herself desires, re-annexation.

If any thing can strengthen our moral obligation
to repan- a great wrong, committed for the sake of
acquiring the Floridas, it is the fact, not generally
known, that the Texians, numbering in 1819,
over ten thousand free white inhabitants, formally-
protested, jits< _/bur?«o»i;/is afltr the signature of the
Florida treaty, against this abandoning of their per-
sons and their territory to the tender mercies of
Spain.

In Niles's Register for 1819, at page 31, is to be
found this protest. It is contained in "a copy of a
declaration issued on the 23d of June ( 1819) by the
supreme council of the republic of Texas," in which,
after stating that the Texians had long indulged the
hope that they would be included in the limits of
our Union — a hope, they add, which the "claims of
the United States, long and strenuously urged, have
encouraged" — the Council proceeds to say:

"The recent treaty between Spain ami the United States
of America has dissipated an illusion too long fondly cher-
ished, and has roused the citizens of Texas froiti the torpor
into which a fancied security had lulled them. They have
seen themselves, by a (jonvkntion to viiick thkv wf.ee no

PARTY, LITF.KALLV ABANDONED TO THE DOMl.MON OF THC

cFovvN OF Spain; and left a prey, not only to impositions
already intolerable, but to all those exactions which Span-
ish rapacity is fertile in devising."

This remarkable protest is signed by the Pres^
identand Secretary of the "Supreme Council." If I
am asked here to produce the credentials of these gen-
tlemen, and to show under what precise law this
Council was elected and qualified, my reply is, that
in the early efforts after independence put forth by
new and thinly settled countries, little of rigid for-
mality can be expected. The declaration is an
expression of public sentiment, as official, probably,
as the then condition of Texas permitted. And ai
all event.?, the authority of the Texian Council was
quite as regular as that of stout Ethan Allen and hia
handful of volunteers, when the old soldier, more
than a year in advance of the Teclaration of Inde-
pendence, thundered at the gates of Ticonderoga,
and bade her surrender "in the name of the great
Jehovah and the Continental Congress !"

But till thi.3, I repeat, touches but the bark of the
controversy. Let us penetrate that, and reach its
substance at once.

Texas is an independent Repuldic, occupying a
separate and equal station among tlie nations of the
earth, legally possessing her own .:^oil, lawfully ad-
ministering her own laws, — or, she is hiu a revolted
province, over which Mexico has preserved nil her
rights; her government but a jirovisional usurpation,
the title to her territory still m the mother country.

Settle that one point — and, as regards the ques-
tion in its foreign relations, every thing is settled.

It seems strange to me, that wc should yet be re-
quired to argue such a question. And yet we are.
Day after day pour forth from the leading journal*
of our opponents protests and denunciations. We
who favor annexation are, if their words are to b«
taken for it, but a band of land-robbers, on a magf-
nificent scale; leagued together for the avowed pur-
pose of filching from Mexico, without a color of
right, some two hundred million acres of her lawful
territory. History is ransacked for examples of
similar profligate ambition; and, in a recent number
of the National Intelligencer, (of December 24,)

en } ;

i our government is likened, without scruple, to "that

-r> politic warrior and tyrant, Frederick the Great,;"

. who, hr.ving "cast an eye of longing- upon part of a

neighboring realm which suited him," bade liis Min-

^ • ister prepare a manifesto, making clear the justice of

^ his title. The Minister obeyed, setting forth "the

-intended act of rapine as an errand of grace, mercy

■ and justice."

»J» "All tbis" (aJc's the Intelligencer) "the ^Minister dvesseil

i^' up in a very captivating form: nothing could be more right-

ful, nothing more necessary for liis own safety from cn-

> _ croachin^ ncighhors, nothing more charitable, nothing more

ij* for the glory of God and the advancement of religion.

. 'Stopl' cried Frederick, when his Minister came to that part

^' , of the .Manifesto; 'leave out God and religion: I want a

province!' "

Similar accusations find a voice on this floor. A gen-
tleman from M^issachusetts, [Mr. Winthuop,] whose
characterand standing give weight to the charge and
demand for it a reply, scrupled not, but the otiier
day. to denounce the proposed act of annexation as
a scheme "monstrous beyond all power of expres-
sion;" as a project, "contrary to the law of nations
and in violation of the good faith of our own coun-
try." My colleague [Mr. C. B. Smith] who has just
spoken, takes the very same ground. He charac-
terized tlie plan of annexation as an attempt "to rob
Mexico of a part of her territory."

Now, sir, 1, for one, when I give my vote, — as I
hope yet this session to give it — for the annexation
«f Texas to these United States, am not willing to
give it silently, under such imputations. Let our op-
ponents here prove to us — not assert it merely —
tliat this projected annexation is but an "act of ra-
pine;" that it is a trampling under foot of justice,
morality, good faith, international law — that we
have no better excuse for it than this, "we want a
province!" — and, if all the dreams of Marco Polo
were realized in Texas; if there, at last, were to be
found Cipango's shores of gold, the treasures of
Antilla — not by my vote should even such a land,
wrongfully wrested from a weaker neighbor, becotne
part of this, yet undishonored. Union ^

But in proof of charges so grave, there lacks
something beyond mere idle iteration. There lacks
proof, that Texas is not an independent State. I
maintain, that she is; and if the Committee will give
me brief attention, I purpose to show, somewhat
more at large than on a previous occasion, good
cause for t!ie opinion.

Not lightly should this question be approached;
rot heedlessly decided. Let us beware! The fate
of our otTspring, the destinies of our descendants,
may hang upon the decision. We, of the West es-
pecially, are as birds of passage. Our instinct at-
tracts us to regions distant and new. In Oregon, or
elsewhere, the question may arise, as now, what is
just revolution, and what, lawless revolt. In judg-
ing the Texians to-day, we may be deciding, of our
own children, in after years, whellier they sliall be
held to be frc.:men meriting honor, or traitors de-
serving death!

Leaving out of view the prime cause of the Tcx-
ian revolution — that "violation of the fundamental
laws," which, Vatiel declares, gives to a sovereign's
subjects "a legal right to resist him" — passing by
that, we come to the fact, that, nine years ago,
Mexico and Texas engaged in war. Texas
was successful. She conquered, and has since
peaceably possessed, her territory. Has she
now a good title to that territory? Has
she a right to convey it to whom she will? Let
Grotuis answer; Grotius writing two centuries ago;

writing under the eye of a king; dedicating his celc«
brated work to a king. Our whig friends cannot ac-
cuse me of dragging in the radicalism of some mod-
ern innovator, to sustain my position. I presume
to hope, that the counsellor of Q,ueen Christina,
when he happens to decide in favor of liberty, will
not be rejected by them as ultra-democratic au-
thority. Yet here is his doctrine:

"According to the law of nations, not only the person
who malv.es war upon just grounds; but any one u-Uafe-tr
ensa^fd in resiilar nndfurmid war,hecomes aliSoliUf pniprii-
tor o/ tvcrythiiis which he takes from the enemy, so tliat
all. nations fespect his title, and (!>>; title of all, who denve
Ihruuiih hiia their claim to such possessions: which, a.s to all
foreign relations, constitutes the true idea of dominion.''—
Rights of War and Prare, Book HI, Chap. VI.

As to the principle according to which the words
"takes from the enemy" are to be construed, Gro-
titis adds:

"In this question upon tlie rights of war, nations have de-
cided, that a person is undtrsloud to hare made n capture.
when lie detains a thing in .mch a manner, that the owner has
ahundoned oil jirohable hopes of recovering it." — Ibid.

In regard to ships, for example, they are held to
be captured, Grotius says, when they are "carried
into some of the captor's ports, or to some place
where their whole fleet is stationed." And as to
personal effects generally, he informs us, that Euro-
pean powers have made it an "establislied maxim
of the law of nations," that "captures shall be deem-
ed good and lawful which have continued in the
enemy's possession for the space of twenty-four
hours."

As to lands, the principle is the same, but the ap-
plication somewhat ditTerent. Grotius's words are:

"Lands are not understooil to become a lawful possession
and absolute conquest from the moment they are invaded,
tor, although it is true, that an army takes immediate and
violent possession of the country which it has invaded, yet
that can only be considered as a temporary possession, un-
accompanied by any of the rights and consequences alluded
to in this work, till it has Ijeen secured Ay some durable
means, by cession or by treaty." — Ibid.

And a little further on is an example of the "du-
rable means" here spoken of. He says:

"Now land will be considered as- completely conquered
when it is enclosed and secured by permanent fortifications,
so that no other state or sovereign can liave free access to
it without lirst making themselves masters of those fortifi-
cations. On this account Flaccus, the Sicilian, assigns no
improbable conjecture for the origin of the word territory,
becan.;c the enemy is deterred from entering it." — Piid.

Here, without cession, without treaty, fortifica-
tions arc held to be "durable means" to secure terri-
tory, and to give absolute title.

Prom all this the rule of law is clear. Temporary
possession of territory, by mere invasion, does not
confer legal title. Permanent possession does.
Possession to be permanent, must be secured by
cession, by treaty, or by other durable means; as, for
example, by f)rtifications. This latter condition
was strictly applicable in former ages, when, as
Zlenopb.on expressed it, "in time of war the po.=5-
session of a country is kept by walls, strongholds
and barriers." But such is not now the custom;
and the law does not require what is nugatory and
useless. Any oiher condition of things which de
stroysall probable hopes of recovery; which i>ro-
vidcs means as elfer-.tual as were the fortifications of
the olden time, to deter the enemy from entering a
conquered territory; docs, in fact, equally with that
antique specification, confer legal title. Such a con-
dition of things is a regular government, formally
i!st<iblished and duly administered, extending its
laws over the territory in question, peacefully ami

with general acquiescence; an organized army and
navy, prepared to protect that government; but,
above all, stable, enduring possession; entire pos-
session, with not a city, town, or even petty fortress
remaining in the hands of the enemy; possession
undisturbed by any invasion that is respectable or
formidable enough seriously to threaten reconquest.
Such a state of things exists, and has for years
existed, in Texas. It eminently fulfils the condi-
tion, that possession shall be secured by durable
means, so as to take away all probable hopes of re-
covery. It fulfils it far more effectually than do
Zenophon's "walls, strongholds and barriers."
The plain truth is, that the government of Texas
shov/s, at this very moment, more signs of stability
than that of Mexico; and that the "province," to
say the least of it, has quite as good a chance to
conquer the mother country, as the mother country
to rcsubjugate the "province."

This, I admit, has not, even since the battle of
(St. Jacinto, always been so. It is Time, the enac-
tor of, and voucher for, the Common Law under
■which we live — it is Time, that has perfected the
Texian title. "What to-day is fact," as some one
has well expressed it, "to-morrow becomes doc-
trine." For a brief space after Houston's brilliant
victory, the world still remained in suspense as to
the ultimate issue of the contest. The "durable
means" had not yet been used, to secure permanent
possession. And while that condition of things
lasted, scrupulously did the United States conform
to its requirements. In the autumn of 1836, Texas
formally applied for admission into our confeder-
acy. What did our Chief Magistrate — he who
now, in his i-etirement, bids us not delay? Did he
evince (as the gentleman from Massachusetts
charges that we have evinced) indecent haste, to
obtain this rich territory.' On the contrary, he re-
jected the overture. "A too early movement," said
General Jackson, "might subject us, however un-
justly, to the charge of seeking to establish the
claims of our neighbors to territory, with a view to
its subsequent acquisition by ourselves."

A second time, in August, 1837, the Texians ap-
plied, through tlieir Minister General Hunt, desir-
iing to be annexed to our Union. And yet again —
this time by Mr. Van Buren — the proposal was
declined.

Thus, in the early stage of Texian self-govern-
ment, we but acknowledged her independence as
existing in fact. We suffered year after year to
set its seal of pern'uinence on the existence and the in-
stitutions of the young republic, before we permitted
ourselves to accept any offers, however advantage-
ous, that involved the question of the validity in law
of that independence, and the consequent compe-
tency of Texas to convey, under good title, her ter-
ritory.

But the years of suspense and probation have
passed. It is weakness, not prudence, in us longer
to delay her full recognition. In former years we
judged the fact of the independence of Texas for the
time being, and acknowledged her ilc facto. Now,
we judge of her permanent independence, and ac-
knowledge her also de jure. We are, for ourselves,
in both cases, the judge. That is, as a sovereign
people, our privilege.

What plea will Mexico or Mexico's friends set
up, in arrest of that judgment? I bethink me of
but one; Mexico has a thousand times urged it; it
js the burden of her justification. The plea is,
that the Texian struggle was a rebellion, not u revo-

lution; that the Texians are still but rebels and
traitors, and have none of the rights of enemies in
war.

It might be enough to reply, as Webster replied
to Bocanegra:

"The government of the United States does not maintain
and never has maintained, the doctrine of perpetuity of natu-
ral allegiance. And .surely Mexico maintains no such doc-
trine; because her actual existing government, like that of
the United States, is founded on the principle that men may
throw oft' the obligation of that allegiance to which they
were born." — Despatch of July S, 1S42.

But there lacks not authority higlier than Web-
ster's in the case. Vattel has treated it at large.
Here is the substance of his doctrine:

"Some writers confine this tei-m (civil war) tea just in-
surrection of the subjects against their sovereign, to distin-
guish that lawful resistance from rebellion, which is an open
and unjust resistance. But what appellation will they give
to a war which arises in a republic torn by two factions;
or in a monarchy between two competitors for the crown?"'
— Liuf of natio7is, Book III. Chap. XVI II.

A little farther on, he proceeds to give his own an-
swer to the question:

"The sovereign, indeed, never fails to bestow the appel-
lation of ?eip?.s on all such of his subjects as openly resist
him: but when the latter have acquired sufficient strength to
^ii'e him effectual opjiosition, and to oblige him to curry on the
war according to the. established rules, he must necessarily
submit to the use of the term, 'civil war.' " — Ibid.

And, as to such a war, Vattel declares:
"It is evident, //la/ the common lows of war — those maxims
of humanity, moderation and honor, which we have already
detailed in the course of this work — ought to be observed by
both parties in every civil war.'^ — Ibid.

A word about humanity by-and-by. Meanwhile
suflfer me to ask, whether in the case of Santa An-
na, the Texians "acquired sufficient strength to
give him effectual resistance." The Mexican Dic-
tator will hardly deny that. And if he cannot, shall
it be tolerated, that Mexico, by a paltry fiction
which deceives no one, not even herself, should per-
sist in assuming that there is no such Republic as
Texas; that the lands lying between the Del Norte
and the Sabine form but a petty revolted province
of hers, which, when she can find a few weeks leis-
ure, she will deign to chastise and rcsubjugate?
All this, if the subject were less grave, might pass
as a piece of national pleasantry. As it is, it is lit-
tle short of an insult to the common sense of man ,
kind.

And we but sanction that insult, if we longer hold
back in our judgment, sustained as it is by the com-
mon voice of the world, that Texas has been receiv-
ed as an equal into the family of nations; and now
enjoys, as fully as any other nation upon earth, the
powers and rights of an independent sovereign.

Enough on this branch of the subject. But now,
dismissing the question of right, we are met by
numerous objections against the expediency of an-
nexation, as a measure fraught with evil conse-
quences to human improvement, even with dan-
ger to the integrity of our Union. One of these —
esteemed the gravest by some good men — is made
in a sacred cause; in the name of human liberty.
It is, that, in receiving Texas, we increase and per-
petuate slavery among men.

We increase slavery? By what process? When,
by act of Congress or oUicrwise, we cause that
country now called the Republic of Texas to be
.'Styled henceforth the Territory, or the State of
Texas, does that reduce a single human being, not
now a slave, to the condition of forced vassalage^
No one will pretend that it can. But it will increase
the number of slaves inlht United Stales? Undoubt-

edly. And so aJso v/ill it sutely increase, witliin
the UnitedStates, the number of murders, and tliefts,
and breaclies of the peace; unless we imagine
Texas a Utopia, where crimes and offences are ut-
terly unknown.

Every human enterprise is of checkered conse-
quences. "The lives of tlie best of us," as it has been
somewhere well said, "are spent in choosing be-
tween evils." In this world of imperfections, the
practical question to be answered before we act, is,
not whether our action is to produce unmixed good
— to no human policy is it given thus to operate —
but whether the good it promises will preponderate
over the evils to which it may open the door. In
admitting Texas, we increase, to some extent, our
slave territory. But shall we count it for nothing,
on the other hand, that we increase also, by one-
sixtii, our Union; happy, prosperous, blessed, even
will ail her faults, as we feel her to be. Is it a priv-
ilege to be a citizen of tliese United States; to sit down
in peace and safety under the shelter of our rejiub-
lican institutions.' And shall we count for nothing
the extension of that privilege to tens of thousands
now living; its prospective extension to millions
more yet to live.'

We can find no Utopia to annex. It is right or
it is wrong, it is wise or it is unwise — apart from
all temporary and sectional considerations, — to ex-
tend the national territory. If right and wise, we
must be content, in carrying out such extension, to
take things as we find them. Who are we, that we
ehould be thus scrupulous in admitting into our con-
federacy a territory nov/ tolerating slavery, because,
in so doing, we are still to continue, over that terri-
tory, or over a portion of it, to tolerate, for a time,
tliat institution.' Who are we, and what has been
our course? Have we hitherto added one foot to the
national domain by treaty with the Red Man, I say
not without jiridijig- evils in the added territory, but
without creating tliem there? What think you of
the transition state of the Indian, brought upon liim
by us, in which we take from him the bold, rude
virtues of aboriginal life, and bestow, in return, on-
ly the lowest vices of civilization? What think you
of the slavery of intemperance, the mi.serics of
disease — our fatal gifts to the original lords of this
broad land; now melting them away, till their very
name will disappear from the living tribes of
eartli? Yet when did the consideration of such con-
sequences ever arrest tlie signature of an Indian
treaty?

But Texas annexation will perpetuale slavery?
To me its probable consequences seem the very re-
Terse of this. The impression is becoming general,
that it would speedily drain off a large portion of
the slave population of the northern slave States;
and aid in efi'ecting, what modern abolitionism has re-
tarded, the peaceful and gradual emancipation of
slaves in Kentucky, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware,
and then in other States. But there is yet another
view to be taken of it. Slavery, like monarchy,
is a temporary evO. It will disappear, as all tem-
porary evils must disappear, so soon as it becomes,
and is generally fell lo be, commercially unprofita-
ble. We are rapidly nearing that point. The grow-
ing density of population and consequent increasing
competition in manual labor, is driving us, year by
year, towards it. And as it is gradually reached,
in the several States; as the day arrives when a
slaTC becomes a negative quantity in the market;
■when his master shall desire, by emancijiation, to
free himself from an incumbrance; iu that day,

whither shall the negro go? Are his friends wise,
in desiring to have the United States hemmed in on
the southwest? in wishing to see a foreign, it might
be a hostile Power, interposed between us and
Mexico? If there be for the liberated African a
path of deliverance and a place of refuge beyond;
that path lies through Texas; that place of refuge,
where the sun suits his blood and the institutions
recognize the equal rights of his color, is to be
found in Mexico, in Guatemala and the States
farther South. Shut him out from these — and are
you not, by that very act, virtually prolonging his
bondage?

Slavery is not the true difficulty. In replying to
the arguments of the abolitionists, we are not at the
bottom of the question. We have not penetrated
to the depths of the opposition against annexation.
We have not yet touched the argument, the strongest,
the deepest-seated in the minds of its opponents.
Late indications distinctly reveal it to us. In the
columns of the leading Metropolitan Whig jour-
nal— the most moderate and respected organ of the
party — in the leader of the National Intelligencer,
under date the 13th December last, I find the fol-
lowing:

"Deprecating any extension of the territorj- of the Uni-
ted States beyond its present limits as an evil, in itself of
great magnitude; protesting against it, under any circum-
stances, for the sake of the interests of the States of the
Union, both old and new, which are, in our opinion, deeply
involved in it; yet if in any form, SiC."

I pray you to note that. I ask you to observe
distmctly how the matter stands. It avails not to
argue, with our opponents, the question of right to
annex. It is idle to substantiate to them, from the
pages of international law or the dictates of com-
mon sense, the legal independence of Texas. These
outworks carried, there is a barrier beyond; tower-
ing far above them; standing untouched, if they
were levelled to the ground. It is not an extension
of our national domain on its southwestern frontier,
it is ANY extension, which our opponents depre-
cate. It is not Texas, as such, they reject; they
would reject equally a country in any other latitude,
peopled by any other race, bearing any other name.
They protest not against annexation, for that it may
increase and perpetuate slavery; they protest against
it, as in 1803 they protested against the purchase of
Louisiana, "under ANY circumstances."

Is the whig party wrong in this, their great objec-
tion? Jls whigs, I am not prepared to assert that
they are.

Rome, in the heyday of her power, added pro-
vince to province; and this extension of her terri-
tory but seemed to hasten her decline and fall.
The mad ambition of Alexander sufficed to conquer
half a world; yet, within a year after his death,
the overgrown empire purchased by the blood of
millions fell to pieces, it seemed, from its own
weight. Are these to be held as beacon lights for
us, in the present juncture? If ours be a govern-
ment like that of Rome under the empire, like that
of the Macedonian conqueror, undoul)tedly yes. If
it is fated gradually to approach such a character,
still, undoubtedly yes. Or if, like Mexico, we are
at last to settle down upon Centralism; if the right*
of the States arc to be stolen piecemeal, and the
central power here invested with their spoils; if
this city of Washington is lo dispense, as did the
mistress of the world from her seven hills, all laws
to govern our land; nay, without proceeding so far,
if all doubtful powers in the constitution are to be
assumed as lawful; if the sphere of federal legisla-

tion is to be gradually increased; if we are to inter-
fere with commerce, favoring under the name of
protection, one section of our country, by taxing
the industry of another; if, closely connected with
our government, there is to be a central money
power, stronger in these days, and therefore more
dangerous to" liberty, than a standing army; if the
checks which the wisdom of revolutionary days in-
corporated in our constitution, to. arrest the
hot haste of party, in its flush of power, — if
these restricting checks are to be swept away;
in a word, if the progress of our federal policy is
to be from the less to the more of legislation; then
reject Texas, abandon Oregon, add not, by treaty,
one acre more of Indian lands. Naj'! if such is to
be our future course, this Union is far too large al-
ready; it ought never to have been permitted to
overpass the Alleghanies.

But will such be the progress of legislation
among us? Ought it to be? In following out, from
age to age, the story of the ceaseless struggle be-
tween the privileges of the few and the rights of the
manyt^forth from every page, blazoned on the ex-
perience of every nation, shines forth the great
truth, that overmuch legislation has been the curse
of mankind; and that law has become (alas ! how
few the exceptions!) a weapon of aggression rather
than an regis of defence. As we read, we feel, that
the protection of government has been overpaid for
by Its iritermeddlings; and that the people might
well, in the words of the Cynic philosopher, tell the
Alexanders of the world, that the only favor they
asked of them was — to stand out of their sunshine !

Men are not wise and good enough to dispense
with law. Would that they were ! Government,
like medicine, is to us a necessary evil. There is
such a thing as the despotism of anarchy; and a
king is not indispensable to a reign of terror. The
practical question is, how many of the Sibylline
leaves of legislation wc may safely burn, yet leave
the remainder more valuable than was the entire
code.

From the fate of past delusions we may determine
the trendings of future reform. When a miner
sinks his shaft and strikes a productive vein of ore,
it is his practice first to follow it so far as to observe
its leading direction: then, emerging to the surface,
with that observation for his guide, he sinks, at re-
mote distances, other shafts, confident that he will
again arrive at the object of his search. So with
the rich and hidden \ud()^ that stretch away into the

treat mine of Progressive Improvement. Guided
y an observation of their past course, we may pre-
dict whore an after generation will find them.

But the principle of progress in legislation has
hitherto been from the more to the less. If we
compare the statutes and constitutions of Republi-
can America with the laws of Monarchical Europe, |
it may surprise u.<;,to discover, how much of the dif-i
ference between them consists — in omissions. And |
of the after-thougiit of revolutionary law-givers — of
the thirtecsi articles that form the amendments to the
federal constitution — nine, at least, are of a negative
or restrictive character; circumscribing, within nar-
rower limiis, the province of legislation. So in old-
er coimlries and in former ages. All the important
provisions of Magna Churta are prohibitory. A
freeman sl)all not lose property or life !)y the mon-
arch's decision; a traveller siiall not be prevented
from leaving the kingdom or returning!; to it at pleas-
ure; llie king's servants shall not arbiirarily seize
Ihe property of his subjects. Even the minor priv-

ileges secured at Runnemede are of a similar stamp;
as witness one, characteristic of those times, namely,
that a baron's widow shall not be compelled to
marry, if she prefer to remain single. So again of
the Habeas Corpus Act, called by Blackstone "that
second Magna Charta and stable bulwark of liber-
ty," of which the provision is, in substance, that a
man shall not be confined in prison on mere suspi-
cion. All of these were rude eflTorts to narrow down
the sphere of government. And still, even in later
years, the same princijjle prevails. Throughout
Europe, — but especially in England, that half-liberal
mother of republics — religion and the press have for
cev'.turies been struggling against the interference of
law; with partial, but positive success. And com-
merce, if at some distance, has been gradually fol-
lowing their footsteps. All proceed in one direc-
tion; all tend to one goal.

From such facts the inference is, that in our re-
public, as elsevvhere, we shall gradually govern less;,
that the province of our federal legislation v/ill con-
tract as our territory expands. If it does — and that
it will the past may vouch — safely, yes, most bene-
ficially may this Union and its blessings spread over
the entire continent of North America; each inde-
pendent State secure in its own separate sovereignty,
and but increasing by its accession, the wealth, the
power, and tiie safet}' of the Great Confederacy.

1 shall notice yet another objection. It is, that
annexation brings, in its train, the scourge of war;
while by refusing to annex, we obtain, surely and
permanently, the blessings of peace. Let us sift
this matter a little.

Two paths are open before us. The one, to de-
clare, as most righteously we may, the legal inde-
pendence of Texas; to act boldly on that declara-
tion; to accept, what not a government in Europe, if
similarly situated, would dream of refusing, the
proposition twice already made to us, that we
should receive again Texas within our borders; and
then — as all men and all nations must, be their con-
duct ever so scrupulous — to abide the consequences.
The other — ah, that, we shall be told, is the path of
safety and of peace ! At its entrance, it may be;
many a path of danger and of death has a fair and
pleasant entrance. Let us look to the end. Say
that we reject Texas, and leave her and Mexico to
settle their cjuarrel. Very well. By so doing, we
sooth the insolence of Mexico, and quist the jeal-
ousy of England. That is satisfactory. England
makes a free trade treaty with Texas; extending
over that republic (as the phrase now is) her "Pro-
tectorate." Let that pass! Mexico, relieved from
all apprehension of interlerence from us, proceeds to
carry into effect the inhuman threats she has lately
made against our Texian neighbors. Is that to
pass, too? . Before we enter this satne path of peace,
let us look a little in advance, and sef.le, which i.s
our way out. Mexico has formally, pui)ltcly, offi-
cially warned the Texians to evacuate their country;
and declares, that, if they refuse, every one who
shall be guilty of the crime of being found anywhere
in Texas three miles from her western frontier, shall
be put to death. Is that, in tliis nineteenth century
incredible? It is true. Witness the "Orders of
Genera! Woll," as officially communicated to this
House by our Secretary of State, carrying out the
provisions of Santa Anna's dcree of June 17; a
decree, which forbids all quarter to the Texians, un-
der penalty, to the officers non-complying, of the
loss of their commissions. Here is the black rec-
ord:

"orders of general woll.

"Headquarters of the Army of the North,

MiER, June -JO, 1844.

"i, Adrian Woll, General of Brigade, Sec, make known:—

"1. The armistice ngieed on with the department of Texas
having expired, and the war bein^, in consequence, recom-
menced against the inliabitauts of the department, all com-
municotion with it ceases.

"•2. Jlvery individual of whatever condition, who may
contravene the provisions of the preceding article, shall be
regarded as a traitor, and shall receive the punishment pre-
scribed in article 45, title . 10, treatise 8, of the articles of
war.

"3. Efeivj indiriiiital who maybe found at a distance of
■one league from the left bank of the Rio Bravo, will hf
regarded as a favorer aiut accomjilice of the usurpers of that
])art of the national territory, dud ns a traitor of his country ;
and, after a summary military trial, ^ludl receive the above
•puniihment.

'■4. Every individual who maj' be comprehended within
the provisions of the preceding article, and may be rasli
enough to fly at the sight of any force belonging to the
Supreme Government, shall be pursued, until taken or put
to leath."

The orders are plain as language can make them.
The crime is being found in Texas. Every individual
from the fact of his being so found, is to be held and
deemed to be a "traitor of his country;" and, as such,
monstrous as it may seem ! all — for there is no dis-
tinction, no exception made or hinted at — EVERY
human being there found, is, after summary mil-
itary trial, to suffer a traitor's death !

In comfortably pursuing our path of peace and of
safety, these "Orders" meet our eye. Are we topa.i;s
them by.' To notice them might breed a quarrel.
Have we a right to notice them.' I suppose the next
question will be, whether we have a right to fire on
the pirate's flag, or to thwart his good pleasure,
when he bids his victims walk the plank, and con-
signs them to a watery grave. But, if needs be, we
may find proof, that the law of nations does, in some
cases — and this is one — permit us to follow the dic-
tates of mercy and justice.

In every civil war, as has been already shown
from Vattel, international law requires both parties
to '-observe the common laws of war, the maxims
of humanity, moderation and honor." What are
these laws.' Let Vattel inform us.

"On an enemy's submitting and laying down his arms,
we cannot with justice tyke away his life. Thus, in a bat-
tle, quarter is given to those who lay down their arms; and,
in a>-Jege, a garrison offering to capitulate are never to be
refused their lives." — Vattel, Unok Hi., chap. H.
, "Women, children, feeble old m^n, and sick persons,
come under the description of enemies; and we have certain
rights over them, inasmuch as they belong to the nation
■with which we are at war. But they are enemies, who
make no resistance; and consequently we have no right to
maltreat their persons, much less to take away their lives.
This is so plain a niaxini of justice and humanity, that, at
present, every nation in the least degree civilized acquiesces
in it." — Iliid.

"It was a dreadful error of antiquity, a most unjust alW
savage claim, to assume a right of putting prisoners of war
to desith, even by the hand of the executioner. More just
and humane principles have, long since, been adopted.'' —
Ibid.

But Mexico, we may be told, only threatens this
flagrant violation of the law of nations. The threat
is itself illegal. What we may not do, neither are
we permitted to threaten. Says Vattel:

"Whatever advantage you may promise yourself from an
nnlawful proceedini;, that will not warrant you in the use
of it. The menace of an unjust piininhnient is ujijust in
ili'lf; it is an insult and an injury." —i'nofc Hi., chap. 8.

But the threat is idle, it has been said; merely
meant to intimidate; too horrible to be fulfilled. If
the bloodshed on the plains of Goliad had a voice;
if the walls of the Alamo could epeakj would tliey

vouch for it, that Mexico is too tenderhearted to
keep lier word? The treaty of capitulation with
poor Fannin was formally drawn up and signed by
both Mexican and Texian officers; yet the morning
of Palm Sunday saw four hundred disarmed men
marched out and shot down, like beeves in a
slaughter-house. From what has been we are jus*
tified in deciding what will be.

But still, if these threatened crimes are committed
by Mexico, where do we find warrant to interposs
and arrest them.' That, too, shall be forthcoming.
It would be strange if it could not be found- Of
what use is a law without a penalty.' Of what
avail the law of nation.s, if nations are not authoriz-
ed to see it obeyed! So decides Vattel:

"The laws of )uitural soeie,ty are of such imiiortance to
the safety of all the States, that, if tlie custom once prevailed
of trampling them underfoot, no nation could flatter her-
self with the hope of preserving her national independence,
and enjoying domestic tranquillity. ♦ ♦ * AH nations
have therefore a right to resort loforcihle vtearts for the pur-
pose ofrenres.vins any one particular nation ti-ho openly vio-
lates the laws of the society which nature has established be«
tween them, or who directly attacks the welfare and safety
of that society.-' — Vattel, Prelim, p. Ixiv.

Here, then, we have the law and its application.
Mexico lias openly violated, and declareil her pur-
pose, in aggravated form, again openly to violate,
the holiest laws of civilized society. By so doing
she justifies us in resorting to force for tiie purpose
of repressing her. Shall we do so.' It is not
always expedient to avail ourselves of a right.
We are not bound to become the Don (Quix-
otes of the age, and sally forth to redress
all the grievances of the civilized world. That haa
never, so far, been the policy of our country.
Greece and Poland had more or less of our sympa-
thy, and that was all. We assumed not to decide
on the British doings in Affghanistan, or to judge
the conduct of the opium war against China. But
Texas is our next neiglibor, and was once under our
special guardianship. We are, to employ the law
phrase in its strictest sense, her nearest friend. To
us, if to any nation upon earth, she has a right to
look for succor and protection. Shall we forsakft
her now.'

If such be our decision, it behooves us, as pru-
dent men, fully to digest our plan; and trace it to it«
final consequfiiices.

Say that we remain inactive and neutral, and suf-
fer things to take their course. What happensif
Conquer Texas Mexico cannot; but invade her she
may; present appearances indicate she will. Justat
this moment, indeed, Mexico is embroiled at home.
But her civil wars are ever of short duration. And
to Texas it matters little which of the barbariuna
triumph. They have bo'h, like H;»iinibal at th«
altar, sworn eternal enmity to her. They vie witk
each other in protestations of zeal. Death and de-
struction to the TexiansI — that, even now, is the
theme of every despatch, the burden of every proo-
lamation. The victor, be he Paredes or Santa An-
na, is pledged to carry out, without delay, in all it«
barbarity, tJie menaced invasion. To sustain and
give brilliancy to newly-gotten power, he must re-
deem his pledge. Imagine the sequel! The Ri»
Bravo is crossed. Another league, and a ruf3a«
soldiery — their swords yet wet wiih the blood of
their countrymen — enter the doomed land. Must I
call up before you the scenes that are to ensurf
Cruel, at best, and terrible, is the trade of war! But
a war of extermination! A war, where the ey«
pities not! where the sword spiu-ts not! whwfc.

the coirmand is, to save alive none that breathe!
Conqiterors, even in the flush of victory, have vrept
over a field of battle, where the strong man died,
his weapon in liis hand, the frown of defiance yet
unfadeu from his brow. But a field of slaughter,
indiscriminate slaughter, slaughter of the defence-
less, the unresisting! — a field, where mingle, defiled
in dust and gore, the white loclis of venerable age
and the fair soft hair of vxnoffending childhood!
Think — think what it is — this carnage of a nation,
without distinction of age, of condition — there is
yet more — of SEX ! — Do you remember the words
the Dramatist?

^ ''The man who lays his hand upon a woman,

Save in the way of Icindness, is a wretcli,
Whom 'twere base Hattery to call a coward'."

And it is woman — it is that gentle being whom
the desert lion himself is said to pity and to spare —
it is the young mother — her infant charge sheltered
in her arms — it is the wife and mother, fleeing to
rescue her person from the pollution of a brutal
banditry — to save the child of her bosom from their
murderous steel — it is even she, to adopt, in all
their cold ofiicial atrocity, the words of the decree
«f blood, who, if she be "rash enough to fly" — at
the sight of this approaching horde of assassins —
is to be "pursued until taken or put to death!" —

— And what then? The report of these deeds of
crime and shame is to come to us across the Sabine.
The story of each succeeding brutality is to sink
down, in all its damning details, into the hearts of
our people. The South, with her fiery pulse and her
hot chivalrj', is to hear it. The West, with her
fearless spirit and her quick sympathies, is to hear
it. The North — yes, the North, less quickly roused,
yet bearing, under her snow, a warm heart of pity —
is to hear it. And, when the shadow of these
deeds of darkness has settled down, like a pall over
the entire land, I ask it yet again, what then? — "It
is no concern of ours. Let them perish !" — Will
that be the language — that the spirit — of young
America? I — but her adopted child — even I dare,
in this, to answer for her. No, no, a thousand
times, no ! We may turn over here the leaves of
musty volumes; we may quote black-letter within
these walls, in proof, that it is ourbounden duty to
stand passively by, without an efibrt to save, with-
out a protest to avert, and see our brethren of Tex-
as, their wives and their little ones, butchered before
our eyes. See if the People will not make the case
their own ! We have not yet, in this hemisphere,
reached the age of placid indifference. A nation's
early youth, like man's, is full of warm and gener-
ous impulse. You will see it ! Mark what the de-
cision of this nation will be ! That we have a right
to interfere? I tell you, no ! — other than that
■will be her language — that we have no right
to hold back ! There is a law more holy, far
more imperative, than the law of the statute
book — the unwritten law of the human heart
— that law, which taught the Samaritan that he
wae the neighbor of him who fell among thieves.

And that law, speaking from the hearts of a your.-
and noble people, will declare to us, that if we pare
by on the other side and abandon our neighbors of
Texas to their fate, ours is the crime, ours the scan-
dal, ours, before the world, the shame! And so it
is! When we sit tamely down under threats like
these — when mercy and courage are so quenched
within us, that we suffer, unprotested, outrage thus
infamous on the law of nature and of nations — out-
rage, we are expressly told, that is to spread it".
crimson stain even to our very borders — then let our
fair national escutcheon trail, shame-stained, in the
dust; we are not worthy to give its broad folds to
the free and gentle breeze of Heaven!

I speak warmly, sir. I feel warmly. Who may-
touch on subjects like that with a quiet pulse? Yet
do I place my confidence in an appeal to sober judg-
ment, not to hasty passion. I but ask you, to look
into the future, before you act. That is the part of
wisdom. 1 but ask you, to examine, step by step,
the issue of the policy which the friends of peace at
any price would have us pursue. I ask you to re-
flect, whether, in taking those steps, we shall be
sustained by those who sent us here. I put to you
the question: will our constituents be satisfied, in he
pre|fnt attitude of Mexico, with apathetic inaction,
tame indifference, stoical neutrality? Each cne
must answer that question for himself. I can but
say, that it is not my judgment of our people. I
have found them neither cold nor passionless. And
they must be both, if they demanded not, that now,
even at the threshold of these menaced atrocities,
while yet the assassin's sword is undrawn, their
government should interpose (as it has interposed)
in the name of outraged humanity, in the name of
violated law, its solemn protest against them. Should
that protest be effectual, well; our interpostion will
have averted murder and preserved peace: but
should it prove unavailing, and the butchery, in very
deed, proceed, the spirit of our fathers must be
dead v/ithin us, if v/e grudge our treasure or oar
blood, whenever both may be needed, to arrest
Mexican barbarity.

My conclusions are, then: that it is both wise and
lawful to accede to the wishes of Texas, and incor-
porate that country into our Union; and that, till
that incorporation is consummated, it is our duty to
protest, and, if need be, to protect Texas, against
all violations of international law, with which she
has been menaced. The custom of nations permitfc'
this cour.se; our national honor demands it. Bold-
ness and plain dealing, ehastened by prudent fore-
sight, are a nation's best resource against foreign en-
encroachment; her surest means to avert the calami-
ties of war. Boldly, then, and without reserve, leti
us meet this question. Let us annex Texas at^'
once. The liberal portion of Uie world will ap-
prove, the rest will acquiesce; and, in ten years, tlic-
wonder will be, not that Texas has settled quietly
down into an integral portion of our confederacy;,
but that men should ever have been found, so blind
to the iritei-ests of their country, as to oppose her
annexation.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

0 014 646 884 6

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

0 014 646 884 6